Italienisch

ISSN: 0171-4996, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2022, pp 137-145

Analysis of High School Students’ Critical Thinking Level Based on Logical

Arguments
Yovita Yuliana Gunawan1*, Sarwanto2, Fahru Nurosyid3
1,2,3
Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Indonesia
Email: yovitayulianagunawan@gmail.com

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to describe the level of students’ critical thinking skills in understanding
data sources. The subjects of the research were selected from several public high schools in Surakarta
(covering high, medium, and low categories in terms of academic achievement) using cluster random
sampling technique. This qualitative research was designed to use a case study approach using descriptive
analysis technique to describe the level of students' critical thinking skills. For data collection, this research
used the rubric from the International Critical Thinking Essay Test (ICTET) and revealed the following
findings: purpose (15.83%), question (13.63%), information (8.63%), point of view (13, 98%), assumptions
(5.08%), concepts (6.79%), conclusions (8.90%), and implications (10.62%).

Keywords: Critical Thinking Skill Level, The Application of Science Concepts, Students’ Arguments, ICTET.

INTRODUCTION
Critical thinking skill as the ability to think rationally must be taught to students. All mental activities included in
formulating or solving problems, making decisions, or eagerness to understand are stages in thinking (Ruggiero, 1988).
Indonesia is implementing the 2013 curriculum in an effort to improve the quality of education. This program places a
premium on in-depth comprehension, skill development, and character education. The emphasis of twenty-first-century
education is no longer on topic mastery; rather, students are encouraged to integrate information (Lovatt & Finlayson,
2013), make inferences, and even generalize their knowledge in order to develop their style of thinking (Afandi, Sajidan,
Akhyar, & Suryani, 2019). Critical thinking skills help students to live in the future (Syahbana, 2012) where they must
possess the ability to assess the information they received (Muhamad, Falah, & Windyariani, 2018).
The Next Generation Science Standard (NGSS) affirms that in the future, students must have both critical thinking and
communication skills (Mutakinati, Anwari, & Yoshisuke, 2018). Students should not be trapped by the informative
learning process since it hinders and gives them the difficulty from in-depth information processing. Students will
abandon rationality in favor of memorization (Lunenburg, 2011). Critical thinking is the capacity to examine data,
identify its relevance, and interpret data in order to solve issues (Jeevanantham, 2008). Students' replies to critical
thinking questions are evaluated using a rubric of reasoning elements that includes the purpose, question, information,
point of view, assumptions, concepts, conclusions, and implications (Richard Paul & Elder, 2007). The scientific method
emphasized in the 2013 curriculum can be combined with the ICTET's rubric elements to assess students' critical
thinking abilities. The 2013 Curriculum's scientific approach contains five basic activities that incorporate the following
steps: observing, inquiring, and evaluating, experimenting, associating, and communicating (drawing conclusions, and
presenting).
Critical thinking is defined as the ability of speaking confidently by thinking critically which allows students to assess the
truth of information. In critical thinking, an organized process occurs, specifically evaluating evidence, assumptions,
logic, and language (R Paul & Elder, 2007). The objective of critical thinking is to arrive at a profound understanding. This
enables pupils to realize the meaning of an idea, which in turn enables them to comprehend the significance of an event.
Constructing scientific arguments is critical practice for students because it teaches them to examine facts from a
scientific perspective and within the investigation's conceptual and experimental constraints. (2020; Xing, Lee, &
Shibani). Scientific arguments are not comparable to other types of argument (Sampson & Clark, 2008). Scientific
reasoning enables scientists and students alike to evaluate evidence gathered throughout the inquiry in order to have a
better grasp of the relevant phenomena (Bricker & Bell, 2008). Scientific debate is also one of the eight required
scientific practices in the classroom. When students have proposed arguments, the teacher should check the quality of
their arguments (Sampson & Clark, 2008).

137| http://www.italienisch.nl © Gunawan, Sarwanto, & Nurosyid

 Italienisch
ISSN: 0171-4996, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2022, pp 137-145
LITERATURE REVIEW
Students must be able to analyze and evaluate their own thinking in order to improve it. Besides, students can also learn
to monitor self-discipline levels by being more sensitive to context and correcting their thinking (Splitter, 1991). There
are three important issues to studying how students construct argument in science context: the argument's structure or
complexity (i.e., its components), the argument's content (i.e., the accuracy or adequacy of the various components in
an argument when evaluated scientifically), and the nature of the justification (how an idea or claim is supported or
validated in an argument) (Sampson & Clark, 2008).
Critical thinking is the ability to assess data, identify its relevance, and interpret data in order to solve problems. It
necessitates a high degree of thinking that entails analytic, evaluative, logical, and reflective processes (Jeevanantham,
2005). The distinction between low-level learning activities (remembering, comparing, and classifying) and high-level
learning activities (assessing credibility, detecting assumptions, and determining the strength of arguments or claims)
should become a point of discussion for teachers. (Hager, 1991). Dealing with the demand of the 21st century
education, which is critical thinking skills, the ICTET rubric is used to detect students’ critical thinking in this research
containing eight elements: the purpose, the questions, the facts, the point of view, the assumptions, the concepts, the
findings, and the implications are all included.
After receiving information, students will process the information based on their point of view to build assumptions. By
combining the concepts that have been learned, students can draw conclusions and think about the implications of the
proposed solutions. However, teacher should pay attention to how students build an assumption since they tend to
ignore the quality and accuracy of the argument, and do not investigate their points from scientific perspective.
Therefore, teacher needs to emphasize the importance of conveying arguments correctly and logically based on
scientific concepts. Argumentation is an important aspect to produce, evaluate, and advance scientific knowledge. Thus,
it becomes a core component of education. In critical thinking skills, the ability to argue is also pivotal.
Scientists develop their arguments not only verbally, but also via the use of writing, mathematical formulas, illustrations,
and photos (Lemke, 1998). Additionally, Lemke asserts that visual representations in scientific publications, such as
diagrams, pictures, and graphs, must interpret the complete document, including words, visual representations, and lists
of references, in order to comprehend the points stated. According to Lemke's recommendation, the researcher
requires students to create brief sketches of their arguments in order to avoid the researcher misinterpreting their
reasoning and awarding the correct score. In science education, teachers must consider ways to engage students more
deeply in this area so that they can develop the ability to debate scientifically. Teachers must understand that in order
for pupils to grow as thinkers, they must progress through many phases of critical thinking. To develop skilled and
mature thinkers, educators should structure their activities around the phases of critical thinking, so the expected results
can be achieved. Thus, the teachers can estimate the part that must be improved so that students' critical thinking skills
develop optimally. In determining the critical thinking skill level of students, the researcher used the reference scores
from critical thinking rubric and compared them with criteria of critical thinking development based on stages of critical
thinking development (R Paul & Elder, 2007) that are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Scoring of Critical Thinking Development Stages (Paul and Elder, 2009)
3.51-4.0 Master Thinker
3.11-3.50 Advanced Thinker
2.41-3.10 Practicing Thinker
Criteria of score 1.71-2.40 Beginning Thinker
1.01-1.70 Challenged Thinker
0-1.0 Unreflective Thinker
Throughout the learning process, data were collected utilizing worksheets and observation sheets. Then, it was
examined using a Paul & Elder (2009), Uttal et al. created critical thinking rubric (2012). Paul and Elder's framework for
critical thinking is one of the frameworks that some academics use to evaluate critical thinking since it is applicable to
engineering, natural sciences, social sciences, and linguistics.

METHODS
The subjects of this research were selected using cluster random sampling from several public high schools in Surakarta
which included the high, medium, and low categories in terms of academic achievement. This was a qualitative research
using a case study approach. To analyze the data, descriptive method was used to describe the level of students' critical
thinking skills. The subjects were 179 students consisting of 4 schools, 8 small classes. During the discussions or
experiments, the subjects were divided into 5-6 small groups to enable the researchers to observe the learning process
of each group more easily. The approach implemented was the scientific approach which is stated in 2013 curriculum
138| http://www.italienisch.nl © Gunawan, Sarwanto, & Nurosyid
 Italienisch
ISSN: 0171-4996, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2022, pp 137-145
that It can help students develop a critical, analytical, and precise mindset while identifying, comprehending, solving
problems, and applying learning materials (Atsnan & R.Y. Gazali, 2013).
The proper implementation of the 2013 curriculum can sharpen students' critical thinking skills. In developing questions
that could measure students’ critical thinking, the researcher used a book entitled “Physics by Inquiry” by Lillian C.
McDermott, a researcher from the Physics Education Group University of Washington, as a reference. The questions did
not only focus on cognitive aspect, but also required students to provide logical solutions of the presented phenomena
(some were in the form of videos) and their implications. To answer each question, students were expected to combine
all the concepts they had learned.
Table 2 summarizes the critical thinking rubrics based on the International Critical Thinking Essay Test (ICTET) (R Paul &
Elder, 2007).
Table 2. Critical Thinking Rubric (based on the Paul-Elder critical thinking framework)
Dimension Score
4 3 2 1
Purpose (A) Demonstrates a clear Demonstrates an Is not completely Does not clearly
understanding of the understanding of the clear about the understand the
assignment’s assignment’s purpose of the purpose of the
purpose. purpose. assignment. assignment.
Questions (B) Clearly defines the Defines the issue; Defines the issue, Fails to clearly define
issue or problem; identifies the core but poorly the issue or problem;
accurately identifies issues, but may not (superficially, does not recognize the
the core issues. fully explore their narrowly); may core issues.
Appreciates depth depth and breadth. overlook some core Fails to maintain a fair-
and breadth of Demonstrates issues. minded approach
problem. fairmindedness. Has trouble toward the problem.
Demonstrates fair- maintaining a fair-
mindedness toward minded approach
problem. toward the
problem.
Information (C) Compiles sufficient, Collects adequate, Collects some Makes assumptions
credible, and credible, and credible data, but based on limited,
pertinent data, pertinent not enough; some irrelevant, or
including information. data may be inaccurate data.
observations, claims, Includes some data irrelevant. Ignores or ignores
logic, data, facts, from conflicting Significant strong, pertinent
questions, graphs, viewpoints. information is counter-arguments.
themes, assertions, Distinguishes omitted, including Confuses data and
and descriptions. between facts and some strong inferences taken from
Includes evidence inferences based on counter-arguments. it.
that both opposes facts. Sometimes
and supports the confuses
asserted position. information and the
Distinguishes inferences drawn
between facts and from it.
inferences derived
from facts.
Point of View (D) Identifies and Identifies and May identify other Ignores or superficially
evaluates relevant evaluates relevant points of view but evaluates alternate
significant points of points of view. Is fair struggles with points of view. Cannot
view. Is empathetic, in examining those maintaining separate own vested
fair in examining all views. fairmindedness; interests and feelings
relevant points of may focus on when evaluating other
view. irrelevant or points of view.
insignificant points
of view.
Assumptions (E) Accurately identifies Identifies Fails to identify Fails to identify
assumptions (things assumptions. Makes assumptions, or assumptions. Makes
taken for granted). valid assumptions. fails to explain invalid assumptions.
139| http://www.italienisch.nl © Gunawan, Sarwanto, & Nurosyid
 Italienisch
ISSN: 0171-4996, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2022, pp 137-145
Dimension Score
4 3 2 1
Makes assumptions them, or the
that are consistent, assumptions
reasonable, valid. identified are
irrelevant, not
clearly stated, and
or invalid.
Concepts (F) Identifies and Identifies, discusses, Identifies some (but Fundamental concepts
precisely explains or and applies not all) are misunderstood or
employs pertinent fundamental fundamental ignored entirely.
core concepts. concepts properly, concepts, but their
but not with the application is at
depth and precision times cursory and
of a “4” erroneous.
Conclusions (G) Follows where Follows where Does follow some Uses superficial,
evidence and reason evidence and reason evidence to simplistic, or irrelevant
lead in order to lead to obtain conclusions, but reasons and
obtain defensible, justifiable, logical inferences are more unjustifiable claims.
thoughtful, logical conclusions. often than not Makes illogical,
conclusions or Makes valid unclear, illogical, inconsistent
solutions. inferences, but not inconsistent, and/or inferences.
Makes deep rather with the same depth superficial. Exhibits closed-
than superficial and as a “4” mindedness or
inferences. hostility to reason;
Makes inferences regardless of the
that are consistent evidence, maintains or
with one another. defends views based
on self-interest.
Implication (H) Identifies the most Identifies significant Has trouble Ignores significant
significant implications and identifying implications and
implications and consequences and significant consequences of
consequences of the distinguishes implications and reasoning.
reasoning (whether probable from consequences;
positive and/or improbable identifies
negative). implications, but not improbable
Distinguishes with the same insight implications.
probable from and precision as a “4”
improbable
implications.
4 = Thinking is exemplary, skilled, marked by excellence in clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logicality, and fairness
3 = Thinking is competent, effective, accurate and clear, but lacks the exemplary depth, precision, and insight of a 4
2 = Thinking is inconsistent, ineffective; shows a lack of consistent competence: is often unclear, imprecise, inaccurate, and superficial
1 = Thinking is unskilled and insufficient, marked by imprecision, lack of clarity, superficiality, illogicality, and inaccuracy, and unfairness

The data collection was analyzed using Kruskal Wallis sequentially to see the differences in critical thinking level in each
class. There were several core concepts that students must master: the first, magnetic induction of wire with current;
the second, the magnetic force on an electrically current wire and a moving charge; and the third, the application of the
principles of magnetic induction and magnetic force in technology in everyday life. In the video presentation, students
must be able to predict the impact that would occur when the U magnet was rotated 90 vertically and other questions
that required concentration and critical thinking skills. There were also questions that asked students to find ways to
distinguish two objects that appeared identical but had different characteristics; magnetic and non-magnetic. Many
students could not answer this question well.
Some examples of answers and analysis of students' critical thinking skills levels are presented in Table 3, meanwhile,
Table 4 describes the flow of students' thinking in finding solutions so that researchers can classify the stages of their
critical thinking skills.

140| http://www.italienisch.nl © Gunawan, Sarwanto, & Nurosyid

 Italienisch
ISSN: 0171-4996, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2022, pp 137-145
Table 3. Examples of Answers and Analysis of Students' Critical Thinking Skills Level
Students’ responses The level of critical thinking skills

LOWER (UNREFLECTIVE AND CHALLENGED THINKER)

Figure 1. Student A
Analysis of Students' Critical Thinking Skills Level:
This problem required students’ mastery of Lorentz force concept and the ability to predict the impact that would
occur and drew conclusions. The answer provided showed that student A had mastered several elements in the ICTET
including purpose, question, and information. The student had a good understanding, so he could sketch the answers
that were close to the correct answers. However, when he was challenged to solve problems using relevant concepts
and implemented the concepts he had learned, he found it was challenging since there was an overlap between the
concepts of electricity and magnetic field. The answers given ended up being distorted and did not have the right
implications. There are so many cases of overlapping concepts that trap students in confusion over their own
thinking. At this level, the student failed to recognize his thinking which included point of view, assumptions,
concepts, conclusions, and implication.

AVERAGE (PRACTICING THINKER AND BEGINNING THINKER)

Figure 2. Student B
Analysis of Students' Critical Thinking Skills Level:
This student had fulfilled the elements in the ICTET that include purpose, question, information, point of view,
assumptions, concepts, conclusions, and implication. The answers provided by this student were almost completely
correct. This student just misused the term in which he assumed Lorentz force (F) was equal to magnetic field (B).
Even though the student's answers were correct and he could describe the sketch well, the teacher should explain
that the use of the right concept must also be adjusted to the correct use of the term.

LOWER (UNREFLECTIVE AND CHALLENGED THINKER)

Figure 3. Student C
Analysis of Students' Critical Thinking Skills Level:
This student lacked of detail in providing answers. He had already had good understanding in several stages: purpose,
question, and information. The concept he provided was almost correct that could be seen from the second picture.
However, the answers related to the point of view, assumptions, conclusions and implication had not well-
constructed. Two pieces of iron will attract each other if one of them is magnetic, the written solution will not work.
These types of answers were provided by almost 90% of the students. This indicates the low critical thinking skills of
students.

AVERAGE (PRACTICING THINKER AND BEGINNING THINKER)

Figure 4. Student D
Analysis of Students' Critical Thinking Skills Level:
This student had understood the purpose, question, information appropriately and had the courage to provide good
point of view and assumptions. There is one concept that is well understood, that is, the strongest part of the magnet
is the tip, but the student is not consistent in thinking. If a magnetic iron is brought near to a piece of iron, it will
always be an attraction, no matter what the student is holding is magnetic iron or common iron. This student is good
at one concept but not used to deep thinking. As a result, student who is accustomed to shallow thinking cannot think
about implication of the answers given. This must have had an effect on the conclusions made. So it is important for

141| http://www.italienisch.nl © Gunawan, Sarwanto, & Nurosyid

 Italienisch
ISSN: 0171-4996, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2022, pp 137-145
teachers to train students to find solutions from different perspectives, do not stuck in one strategy. Shallow thinking
is the quickest step to draw the wrong conclusion.
Table 4. Student's Thinking Flow and Stages of Classification of Critical Thinking Skills
Thinking Flow Conclusion
Stages of Classification: lower (Unreflective and Challenged Thinker)
The students argued that to lose its magnetic properties, Unreflective thinkers are largely unaware of the
one of the sticks should be dropped in. After that, they appropriate standards for assessment of thinking: clarity,
would bring the two irons closer, if there was no accuracy, precision, relevance, logic, etc. The challenged
attractive force, the iron they dropped was a magnet. thinkers already realized that their thinking is often flawed;
This process takes a long time because it is not easy to however, they were not able to identify many of these
remove the magnetic force of an iron by dropping it. flaws. Therefore, teachers must recognize the importance
Instead, this also destroys the iron that has been of challenging students with supportive learning methods
magnetized. to recognize that they are also thinkers. The teacher must
*) Unreflective thinkers lack the knowledge that high-quality thinking lead the class discussion because most of challenged
requires regular practice in taking thinking apart, accurately assessing it,
thinkers have limited skills in thinking.
and actively improving it. Unreflective thinkers mostly fail to address
their thinking, and the thinkers usually focus on one solution.
*) The challenged thinkers have actually developed initial awareness by
involving concepts, assumptions, conclusions, implications, points of
view, etc in their thinking. But their thinking is still not accurate.
Stages of Classification : AVERAGE (BEGINNING AND PRACTICING THINKER)
One example of a student being in the average category Beginning thinkers have been able to identify many
as the student's answer which only stopped on the problems in their thinking but have not found a way to
sentence "to get closer to the ends of the magnet". They solve them. Beginning thinkers have enough skills in
had tried to think of the right answer, but it was not thinking to criticize their own thinking in systematic
complete. The students thought that the tip of the practice and start monitoring it regularly. Thus they can
magnet is the strong part, but they did not know that the effectively articulate strengths and weaknesses in their
middle part is the weakest part of the magnet. thinking. Practicing thinkers are beginning to recognize
*) Beginning thinkers have enough thinking skills to start monitoring egocentric thinking in themselves and others. Practicing
their thinking, even though as "beginners" they are sporadic in that
thinkers can monitor their thinking about concepts,
monitoring. Beginning thinkers are able to appreciate a critique of their
thinking and have enough intellectual perseverance to struggle with assumptions, conclusions, implications, points of view, etc.
serious problems while yet lacking a clear solutions to those problems.
*)Not only do practicing thinkers understand the existence of flaws in
their thinking, but they also appreciate the importance of resolving
these issues on a global and systematic scale. They actively assess their
thinking in a variety of disciplines as a result of their sense of the
necessity of practicing constantly. However, because practicing thinkers
are only now beginning to pursue thinking improvement in a systematic
manner, they have only a limited understanding of deeper levels of
thinking.
Stages of Classification: HIGHER (ADVANCE AND MASTER THINKER)
Whereas for the higher category, called advance thinkers Advanced and master thinkers regularly critique their plans.
and master thinkers, students must be able to answer This matter improves their thinking habits thereby. They
that there are two parts of a magnet, see Figure 5a and can combine the information obtained with concepts that
Figure 5b, the strong part (the ends of the magnet) and have been learned to provide assumptions and convey
the weak part (in the middle of the magnet). points of view appropriately. In addition, they are also
Figure 5a. shows if A is accustomed to thinking about the implications of their
iron and B is a magnet, solutions and can provide logical and systematic
then B will always stick conclusions based on their way of thinking.
firmly to A (in any
position)
Figure 5b. shows if A is
magnetic and B is iron,
then in the middle part
of the image, A will not
stick to B (because the
middle part of the magnet is very weak)
*) Advance thinkers are able to think well but have not been able to
think consistently at this high level in all aspects.

142| http://www.italienisch.nl © Gunawan, Sarwanto, & Nurosyid

 Italienisch
ISSN: 0171-4996, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2022, pp 137-145
Stage of Critical Thinking Skills of Senior High Schools Students in Indonesia

Note:
(Higher = M and A; Master Thinker and Advance Thinker),
(Average = P and B; Practicing Thinker and Beginning Thinker),
(Lower = C and U; Challenged Thinker and Unreflective Thinker)

Figure 6. Level of Critical Thinking Skills of Senior High Schools Students in Surakarta
By identifying the average level of students' critical thinking skills, the teacher can use the results of this research as a
reference. Courage in expressing ideas must be treated fairly and not underestimated by the teacher so that students
are more proficient and skilled in critical thinking. In Figure 6, it can be seen that the majority of students are in 2 stages
of critical thinking, called unreflective thinkers and challenged thinkers. In more detail, the percentages are presented as
follows: Unreflective Thinker 47.49%, Challenged Thinker 39.11%, Beginning Thinker 10.61%, Practicing Thinker 2.79%,
while Master and Advance Thinker are still 0%.
Critical thinking is motivated by a sense of wonder and a belief in the evidence's validity. It entails important elements
(sometimes referred to as logical reasoning elements), such as the identification of assumptions, the formulation of
deliberate inquiries, the pursuit of deeper understanding through reflection, and also the use of perspective (Archibald,
Sharrock, Buckley, & Cook, 2016). Students who are trained as critical thinkers are able to work at all levels of higher-
order thinking in the cognitive dimension, so that it will impact on improving student learning in terms of understanding,
beliefs and new perspectives that are more potential (Mandernach, Forrest, Babutzke, & Manker, 2009).
Level of Critical Thinking Skills of Senior High Schools Students in Surakarta

Note:
(M and A; Master Thinker and Advance Thinker),
(P and B; Practicing Thinker and Beginning Thinker),
(C and U; Challenged Thinker and Unreflective Thinker)

Figure 7. Levels of Critical Thinking Skills in the High School Level in Surakarta
In this research, students' critical thinking levels based on several senior high school are divided into 3 categories,
including high, medium, and low levels as shown in Figure 7. SMA A was in high category, SMA B and SMA C were in
medium category, and SMA D was in low category. These categories were made based on the average academic
achievement of these high schools from 2016-2020. It was assumed earlier that students at SMA A would produce the
highest score compared to other high schools because SMA A was a favorite school where students were academically
intelligent and quickly learned new things. However, unintentionally, students at SMA D showed the lowest score at the
unreflective thinker level. It implies that students at SMA D had unlimited thinking and did not only focus on one
solution in answering the proposed questions. SMA D students could develop thinking process that involved concepts,
assumptions, conclusions, implications, and points of view better than students from other schools.

143| http://www.italienisch.nl © Gunawan, Sarwanto, & Nurosyid

 Italienisch
ISSN: 0171-4996, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2022, pp 137-145
The Comparison of Critical Thinking Skills Levels of Indonesian Senior High School Students VS Japanese High School
Students

Note:
(M and A; Master Thinker and Advance Thinker),
(P and B; Practicing Thinker and Beginning Thinker),
(C and U; Challenged Thinker and Unreflective Thinker)

Figure 8. Levels of Critical Thinking Skills of Indonesian High School Students VS Japanese High School Students
Based on another research used as a comparison, as shown in figure 8, it is highlighted that junior high school students
in Japan (Mutakinati et al., 2018) with a total of 160 students have critical thinking skills which are categorized as
advanced thinkers at 41.6%, practicing thinkers at 30.6%, beginning thinkers at 25%, and challenged thinkers at 2.8%.
Comparing to Indonesian students, there is a similarity that no one has succeeded in becoming a master thinker.
However, there is a significant difference because the percentage of students' critical thinking skills in Indonesia is still
dominated by 47.49% of unreflective thinkers and 39.11% of challenged thinkers. This research also employed ICTET to
detect students' critical thinking skills. To change students’ habit in thinking, teacher needs to design learning process
that continuously exposes students to critical thinking activity. The results of this research can be used as a reference by
teachers in Indonesia to be able to improve students' critical thinking skills at a higher stage.

CONCLUSION
This research underpins that on average, high school students in Surakarta were included in the lower category
(unreflective and challenged thinker) and a small proportion of students were included in the average thinker (beginning
and practicing thinker). Those who were average thinkers already had enough thinking skills so that they could assess
their plan systematically to strengthen their thinking. Unfortunately, many students lack of knowledge, as a result, they
tend to deliver less-logical arguments since they did not incorporate scientific concepts in solving the problems. These
arguments will be seen as "stupidity" and will have a detrimental effect on pupils' development of critical thinking skills.
Quality thinking needs consistent practice in dissecting, accurately assessing, and actively changing one's thinking.
Thus, from the findings of this research, the researcher address several conclusions: (1) there are predictable stages that
each individual who develops as a critical thinker goes through, (2) the development from one stage to the next stage
depends on commitment to be critical thinker that it is not automatic or happens unconsciously, and (3) success in
teaching is closely related to the intellectual quality of students. Students with higher level of critical thinking can help
their friends of the lower level.
The results show that the average score of Indonesian students is in the lower category, so a deeper analysis needs to be
developed. For example, at the unreflective thinker and challenged thinker stages, the teacher must be able to make a
more detailed rubric to find out the students' mindset so that if a student answers incorrectly, the teacher not only gives
a score but also reviews more deeply the level of analysis of the student's critical thinking. At this stage, teachers can
find solutions to improve students' critical thinking skills in Indonesia.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researcher would like to express his gratitude to all the institutions that sponsored this research at high schools in
the Surakarta area that were willing to participate in this study, as well as the reviewers.

REFERENCES
[1] Afandi, Sajidan, Akhyar, M., & Suryani, N. (2019). Development Frameworks of the Indonesian Partnership 21st-
Century Skills Standards for Prospective Science Teachers: A Delphi Study. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 8(1).
https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v8i1.11647
144| http://www.italienisch.nl © Gunawan, Sarwanto, & Nurosyid
 Italienisch
ISSN: 0171-4996, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2022, pp 137-145
[2] Archibald, T., Sharrock, G., Buckley, J., & Cook, N. (2016). Assumptions, conjectures, and other miracles: The
application of evaluative thinking to theory of change models in community development. Evaluation and Program
Planning, 59, 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.05.015
[3] Atsnan, M. F., & R.Y. Gazali. (2013). Penerapan Pendekatan Scientific Dalam Pembelajaran Matematika SMP Kelas
VII Materi Bilangan (Pecahan). Prosiding Seminar Nasional Matematika Dan Pendidikan Matematika, Yogyakarta
(Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta), 978–979.
[4] Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences
and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473–498.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20278
[5] Hager, P. J. (1991). The Critical Thinking Debate: Editorial Introduction. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 23(1),
1–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.1991.tb00171.x
[6] Jeevanantham, L. S. (2008). Why teach critical thinking? Africa Education Review, 2(1), 118–129.
https://doi.org/10.1080/18146620508566295
[7] Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. JR Martin & R Veel (Eds.),
Reading Science (Routledge), 87–113. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203982327-17
[8] Lovatt, J., & Finlayson, O. (2013). Investigating the transition into third level science - Identifying a student profile.
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(1), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2rp20107k
[9] Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Critical Thinking and Constructivism Techniques for Improving Student Achievement.
National Forum of Teacher Education, 21(3), 1–9. Retrieved from http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic
Journal Volumes/Lunenburg, Fred C. Critical Thinking & Constructivism V21 N3 2011 NFTJ.pdf
[10] Mandernach, B. J., Forrest, K. D., Babutzke, J. L., & Manker, L. R. (2009). The Role of Instructor Interactivity in
Promoting Critical Thinking in Online and Face-to-Face Classrooms. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 5(1), 49–62.
[11] Muhamad, C., Falah, N., & Windyariani, S. (2018). Improvement of Students’ Critical Thinking Skill Through Search,
Solve, Create, and Share (SSCS) Learning. Didaktika Biologi, 2, 25–32.
[12] Mutakinati, L., Anwari, I., & Yoshisuke, K. (2018). Analysis of students’ critical thinking skill of middle school through
stem education project-based learning. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 7(1), 54–65.
https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v7i1.10495
[13] Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2007). Critical Thinking Competency Profiles. Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 1–6.
Retrieved from
https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/sites/curriculum.gov.bc.ca/files/pdf/CriticalThinkingCompetencyProfiles.pdf
[14] Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2007). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. The Foundation for Critical
Thinking, 34(6), 14–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4170340606
[15] Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education:
Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
[16] Splitter, L. J. (1991). Critical Thinking: What, Why, When and How. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 23(1), 89–
109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.1991.tb00178.x
[17] Syahbana, A. (2012). Peningkatan Kemampuan Berpikir Kritis Matematis Siswa SMP Melalui Pendekatan Contextual
Teaching and Learning. Edumatica, 02, 45–57.
[18] Xing, W., Lee, H. S., & Shibani, A. (2020). Identifying patterns in students’ scientific argumentation: content analysis
through text mining using Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5),
2185–2214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09761-w

145| http://www.italienisch.nl © Gunawan, Sarwanto, & Nurosyid